The Australian model as of now is very much set up with the better off in the middle and the poorer in the distant suburbs. Melbourne in particular has a ring defined by the tramway system (8 to 12 miles from the centre) defined as "transport zone 1" and full of middle class and better housing. (About one third of the total population) The former inner decay suburbs of Carlton, Fitzroy, Collingwood etc were resuscitated by post-war migrants and are now being furiously gentrified. Even housing commission estates are being refitted as yuppie flats. The poor have been despatched to heroin-riddled wastelands 15 to 40 miles from the centre.
One of my favourite -:) neoliberals has been campaigning to have the Melbourne tramway system abolished on the grounds that it is unfair for the middle classes to have a first rate transport system while the outer suburban poor have a bus per hour if they are very lucky. He has not had much success yet. A number of posts to this list lamented the loss of streetcar systems from many US cities: the fact that Melbourne saved most of its system may rub in the pain. The only part of the system that was closed in the 1950s served the working class inner western suburbs -- and these are the only part of old "inner" Melbourne to stay depressed and avoid gentrification. The clear evidence from Melbourne is that people with cars will use a tram (trolley/ streetcar) if it is available but won't take the bus -- if they are going to be stuck in traffic they might as well be in their own car.
I don't quite know why the Australian middle classes aren't terrified of the poor: perhaps because we still have a high minimum wage and a seamless welfare net. Except for migrants, who have to wait two years for any form of welfare, and aboriginal, we haven't got any poor as the UK or US understand the term.
You should be careful of lumping Australia in with the USA, because quite apart from the effect on my blood pressure, you may fail to make some useful comparisons.
JML
-----Original Message----- From: Rosser Jr, John Barkley (part)
> It should be kept in mind (if somebody hasn't already
>pointed it out) that the model of "rich in the suburbs,
>poor in the central cities" is largely a
>US/Canada/Australia/New Zealand model. In most of Europe,
>Asia, Africa, and Latin America it is the other way around,
>with the poor in "working class suburbs" or shantytowns,
>with the rich in long-established downtown neighborhoods
>(or way out in the much farther out countryside